Garrett Jones lays out the (classical) liberal caution in regards to indiscriminate immigration. Here’s the question:
But what happens in the very long run? As immigrants shape the culture of their new homelands, will they import more than just new ethnic cuisines? Will they also import attitudes and policies that wound the golden goose of first-world prosperity? Ultimately, will migrants make the countries they move to a lot like the countries they came from?
Among much treasure, this is of special interest to XS:
Economists have long known that some of the strongest statistical predictors of long-run national prosperity have been “percent Confucian” and “percent Buddhist.” A famed paper coauthored by Xavier Sala-i-Martin demonstrated that conclusively. It’s time for scholars to investigate whether, for most countries, a pro-Confucian migration policy is a good option.
Late to this, which is what the comparatively honest faction of the Cathedral is seeing.
Main XS-specific quibbles:
(1) No, I didn’t have anything to do with The Dark Enlightenment blog. Nor, I’m highly confident, did Curtis Yarvin. I’m especially confident that the Open Letter was not written as an introduction to the DE.
ADDED: See this TDE statement.
(2) I have no social connections at all with the Lesser God-tier of SV. (If I did, I’d brag about it all the time.)
(3) Anyone who thinks this usage of echoes is non-ironic needs a Kek-check.
(4) The RamZPaul link is complete black-thread and duct tape conspiracism. (C’mon, seriously, that’s obvious, isn’t it?) A little reciprocal linkage isn’t a social relationship. We both merely acknowledge that the other guy exists.
Induction would suggest there are some other howlers beyond my epistemological horizon. Frankly, though, I don’t see much deliberate malevolence here. Cramer seems to be doing his best to understand what’s going on, and to remain as calm as possible about it. If he’s primarily interested in the Alt-Right, I’d recommend much more attention to Richard Spencer, and much less to Neoreaction. My recommendation to NRx, naturally, is to vindicate that suggestion.
Broken on Twitter, but containing far too much insight into traumatic discrimination disorder to leave there:
NRx and Alt Right share just about one thing in common, but because that thing is “hating the media” the media naturally can’t tell them apart.
(Sentence unchanged, but glued back together, with one semiotic shortcut — “bc” for “because” — edited up into English)
For historical reference, this was the occasion.
The blog obviously isn’t coming from where Scott Aaronson is, and the title of this post isn’t even centrally his question, so I’m asking it.
If you were trying to discredit a demographic policy that discriminated against Islamization, the thing rolled out by the US administration looks like a good way to do it. Shouldn’t selecting against Salafism be the policy core? Such a stance could be easily based upon solid American precedent. This looks like something else entirely. (It’s a dog’s breakfast, which is to say hastily hashed-up populism food.)
ADDED: The flip-side to Scott Aaronson’s concerns (from his own comment thread).
An instant classic from Wired:
Silicon Valley, the 50 square miles of land in the US that has created more wealth than any other place in human history but has still achieved very little in becoming a more inclusive, truly diverse place.
It might be functional, but it’s failed hopelessly at making itself dysfunctional. Thiel just doesn’t get that.
John Podesta (!) [Ummm, no], link:
What makes for successful immigration? […] It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face. The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.
There’s a lot going on here.
The intolerable clarity of Sailer at work:
… the concept of “Europeanism” upon which the EU was founded — that Europeans should be more neighborly to their fellow Europeans than to non-Europeans — is increasingly unmentionable in polite society because it’s seen as racist. For example, during the peak of adulation for Merkel before reality set in, she was widely praised for personifying European values by de-Europeanizing Europe.
How would one even begin to argue with anything said here? There’s a lot in this short passage, but nothing that isn’t obviously true, to everyone, which accounts — perhaps — for the fact that it is nevertheless almost unthinkably controversial.
It would be a relief to see Merkel awarded the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize for her contribution to the ruin of Europe. If not honest — or anything close — it would at least attain meta-honesty, by defining ‘peace’ explicitly as the suppression of truth.
Realistically, economic opportunity on a new frontier is likely to predominate as the driver for geopolitical disintegration, but “Where do I have to go to get away from these people?” is worth carving on the gate of an Exit-based polity. It’s Elysium, and probably the right-most impulse of the present world order. The Cathedral basically coincides with the answer: Nowhere. It’s not an allowable incentive. Still, it’s already a huge incentive (in fact), and every week it gets more huge.
Running the entire immigration crisis through this question is (darkly) enlightening. Anything that might count as a positive answer is probably our stuff.
Spengler (Goldman) at his sanest (“Why do Americans persist in believing that they can remake the world in their own image, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?”):
Writing in the New York Daily News, former Forward reporter Ira Stoll gushed, “To me, Chalabi was Iraq’s Samuel Adams, its revolutionary leader who inspired, agitated, persuaded, and persevered in the face of overwhelming odds and when others lost hope.” The notion that some countries do not have a Sam Adams and never will have a Sam Adams simply doesn’t occur to the neo-conservatives. Like the last academic Marxists, they will die convinced that the theory was right and the failure lay in the implementation. Somehow they managed to gain the confidence of George W. Bush and did more to undermine America’s power and credibility than all of America’s declared enemies.